The Anti Gun movement kills its own arguments

how many narcotics traffickers are "family men"

cops have a duty to uphold the law. so do prosecutors. if every cop decided not to enforce laws they find objectionable, we'd have anarchy. now I think its stupid to jail weed dealers and low level sellers of some of the other stuff. However, people pushing heroin that is cut with elephant tranquilizer, rat poison or worse are not people who are really in need of sympathy

 

Again,
Surely you jest,

You realize these arrests resulted in removing many thousands of Kilos of high grade Heroin off the streets Drugs that were being distributed to School Children killing many of them in overdoses ?

Have you ever held a poor dying child' dying from a Heroin overdose in your arms ?

No ?


And you are going to lecture me ?

What about those rascals that pulled guns on us and tried to kill us, often injuring many of us ?

Are you a criminal,
or have a hatred of Police Officers in the performance of their official duties ?

 

It doesn't matter. If their offense is merely legal, those who use the extent of the law(whatever it may be) to take them to task have almost always perpetrated a greater evil than they(the legal offenders) were doing in the course of their work. If they are "family men", and you know some are, the wrong is that much more obvious.

 

All should take note of this persons arguments on behalf of criminals everywhere and a lack of support for Police and Prosecutors in the performance of their Official duties.

I will refrain from further elaboration as Forum rules would indeed be violated if I continued.

 

I realize that I struck a nerve with you. As it happens, I didn't intend to. Cops are the most delicate flowers in my experience, and I had no idea you were one of them.

 

A delicate flower ?
Really ?
Are you calling me a delicate flower or a police officer ?
Rather ambiguous, disambiguation requested.
Perhaps the Alcohol speaketh.

"Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging, he who deceiveth himself is not wise."
KJV

 

I'll respond in the morning.

 

I wish you well.
I do not think you are quite yourself right now.
Good night and rest well.

 

I didn't call you anything. Like every cop, you get overexited about everything. You've been drinking too, so chill. We'll talk about it tomorrow.

 

Fantasizing and offering a prediction are two different things. The issue we are discussing in this formum isn’t about guns, it’s about the form of government we advocate and individual liberty vs collectivism. Two diametrically opposed positions we already fought a war over with the Brits and others to preserve our values since.
Any FBI agent would know that.

 

Killing people is an occasionally necessary evil.
Please don't assign your preconceptions to others and then try to build an argument on it - you'll only further embarrass yourself.

 

This woman is 100 years old and still dropping deer
Brian Broom, Clarion Ledger Published 10:11 a.m. CT Jan. 5, 2018 | Updated 6:59 p.m. CT Jan. 6, 2018


CLOSE

[The buck story is another by Brian Broom. I don't know how to remove the leader from this doe story.]

Centenarian plans to harvest buck, fish more in 2018
TWEET 1 LINKEDIN 4 COMMENTEMAILMORE
Like any good southern hostess, Bertha Vickers of Morgantown greets her guest with a pot of coffee and home-baked cake. She offers me a seat at the heart of most homes, the kitchen table.

As we sit and talk I can't help but think how strange our conversation is becoming. After all, it's not every day I talk with women about Browning shotguns, deer hunting and wading in rivers while fishing. It's also the first time I've had that conversation with a woman who will celebrate her 100th birthday in a few days and harvested her most recent deer only a couple of weeks ago.

"It's just over here across the creek about three or four miles," Vickers said. "One of my neighbors invited me to come sit in a (shooting) house.

Legislator calls for reporting deer, turkey harvests


"I got to watch birds and squirrels until nearly dark. The first evening the deer came out and I was getting the cross-hairs on the deer and his dog barked. He let out a howl and the deer took off."

But Vickers was in the stand the following afternoon.


Bertha Vickers sits at her kitchen table as she talks about her memories of her 100 years of life. (Photo: Brian Broom/Clarion Ledger)


"The next evening two came out," Vickers said. "They were getting close to where I wanted to shoot.

"I was sort of shaking until I got ready to shoot. I didn't think it was all going to go right."

Fortunately, everything did go right. Vickers touched off her .243 Winchester rifle and her shot was perfect."

[just WOW!]

 

Alright, so we've opened a few cans of worms here, each of which really needs its own thread(at least one of them already has its own subforum here), so I'll try to just touch on each of them as I see it.

Notice that, in your responses to the request for justification for arresting drug dealers, you both immediately appealed to acts other than the sale itself?
Misrepresenting what one is selling is fraud, and recognized as such by every legal system ever.
To cut a drug(eg heroin) with another poison is reckless at best, which is at least tortious in every legal system that I know of as long as damage could be shown. At worst, it's some kind of homicide, in every legal system ever.
They pulled guns and shot at you; under what circumstances? Did they seek you out to do that, or were you invading their space? I guess I don't have to tell you that shooting at you unprovoked would be actionable in some way under every legal system that has evolved rules on assault(which doesn't take long).
Even in the most libertarian of hypothetical legal systems, I can't imagine people tolerating some guy selling heroin(even clean heroin), or even weed for that matter, to their young children. It's not those of the children, but his life that would be short and unpleasant in such a society. But even this is an act of a different nature. Selling anything to someone's young child is not seen the same way as selling it to a pier by any peoples.
Finally, on the sale of a drug, qua that drug, by one mature human actor to another, both compos mentis, I'm with Spooner. The relationship of the dealer with respect to the user is that of an accomplice. If action against the principal is not justifiable, then no action against the accomplice is justifiable either.

Now for the hard part: Where does moral responsibility for acts done by agents of the state acting in the capacity of their office lie? The notions of vicarious responsibility and respondeat superior are old and useful, but, when it comes to the state, that 'superior' turns out to be illusory. With other corporations, liability is imputed to the body, but they don't resolve disputes to which they themselves are party, while a state does. In the interest of brevity, I'll go ahead and jump to the conclusion that I come to, which is that moral responsibility for wrongs done by agents representing a state must lie with the actors themselves. and I know, we would need a new thread to hash this one out.

 

Waiting periods have resulted in innocent people losing their lives.

Forcing someone to wait to acquire a life-saving firearm infringes on their right of self-defense and thus renders their very right to life null and void.

 

According to scientific evidence waiting periods have reduced homicides and suicides resulting in many SAVED LIVES

 

Despite increases in gun ownership pursuant to 2d Amendment rights, government police criminals continue to kill innocent citizens. Thus, the ownership of weapons has done nothing to protect the citizen from government abusiveness. Of what use is this right if it is not exercised to protect the public from government criminality?

 

You should go buy a gun and change this.

 

Nah, the 2d Amendment rights pro gun, anti-government self proclaimed heroes would prefer younger and more forceful types who are not hampered by arthritis and old age like me.


So how soon will you be assembling a patriotic army in order to disarm the government and free the people?

 

Not that I agree with your position, but no one is obligated to exercise a right.

 

I suppose that's true esp when it comes to voting or squawking about some other hassle in society.

 

Let me get this straight. You are advocating for the small percentage of lawful Americans that have a license to carry, to interject themselves into a quickly developing situation between law enforcement and a suspect of which all facts are not known to the carrier. You want the lawful carrier to shoot the cop so to protect this possible innocent citizen. Or possibly not so innocent.
Have I got that right?

 

2d Amendment applies to all, not just a handful.

I'm for those who say they must have guns in order to protect the public from government should just go ahead and back up their words with action. And why not???

 

Attacking someone after the fact is murder, not self defense, and is not a right. No one is obligated to exercise a right, anyway.

 

preventive medicine is best and is what the right wing 2d Amendment rights pundits always say about intrusive government

 

Your right, 2A does apply for all, however our government requires a license to legally carry in public which is where police shootings occur.
Again, in the interest of protecting the innocent, are you suggesting that legal carriers intervene in police interactions with suspects without knowing the details of quickly developing events?